I imagine that it’s unnerving to hear that a parent should instruct their child with some distance, touching her very little, and as the American Behaviorist John Watson (1928) said, “If you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say goodnight.” Chances are, this last bit of advice seems odd to you – perhaps appalling – who would refuse affection to a young child? But then, you are probably, like me, a product of a culture that has since been re-educated by John Bowlby, a British Psychoanalyst, and Harry Harlow, an American Experimentalist (though you may not know it J).

In the early 20th century, Behaviorism was on the rise in Europe and the U.S., as psychology attempted to make its image more “scientific.” John Watson was of the belief that he could make a child into anything by a series of paired associations, also known as classical conditioning. His legacy includes Little Albert, the baby who was trained to fear rats by a pairing of a rat with a loud, alarming sound. He also believed that affection was not necessary in a parent-child relationship, and indeed, it would spoil the child and produce negative effects.

Two researchers, working separately and continents apart, came to be particularly distressed by this approach to psychology and parenting. They developed two separate, yet eventually intersecting, lines of research to combat the approach. The first is John Bowlby, who observed many children in his psychoanalytic practice, including those orphaned after World War II, and began to develop his theory of attachment. He proposed that children who are separated from a primary caregiver (and in his view, the mother specifically) developed social and behavioral problems as a result of the separation. His work, steeped in ethology (the study of natural behavior, with reflection to evolutionary function), pointed strongly to the need for a child to attach to the mother – beginning with physical contact in infancy.

The second person was Harry Harlow, who trained as an experimentalist in animal behavior and performed all of his early research on rats. Once beginning a professorship at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he found himself short a rat-research lab and had to think quickly about another test subject. He ended up developing an extensive primate center (Harlow Primate Laboratory) to research rhesus macaques. While breeding a local population of these monkeys on whom he could perform his learning and motivation experiments, the monkeys were isolated from one another to avoid spread of infection. These monkeys, reared without a mother, were then noted as having major difficulties interacting socially with other monkeys when the opportunities arose. His ensuing research ultimately showed that monkeys reared without mothers have severe and lasting deficits to social behavior – indeed, his isolated monkeys could not be rehabilitated despite his efforts to do so.

Meanwhile, there’s Watson whose advice regarding the need to limit parental affection was far reaching – consider Lucille Ball’s character in I Love Lucy, happy to have a son, who was most often tucked away in a crib somewhere as she went about her day. We don’t see Lucy doting over little Ricky and being affectionate. This view was beginning to spread into homes; Watson is notorious for influencing popular American culture of his time.

Why the huge difference in opinion? The easiest answer seems to be bias. All three men produced research that is still influential today, but it also shows their own biases. Bowlby and Harlow were adamant that the prevailing views of the psychological world as influenced by Watson was wrong, and they came to the conclusion that infants (human and monkey) need to have an attachment figure to develop normally. Such advice echoes today with current research.

However, there are also some biases that are starting to be overturned from these scholars. Bowlby was so certain that the infant need attach to the mother, that the father (and extended relatives) was practically washed away with the bathwater. Such a perspective has far-reaching implications – such as a judicial bias to grant parental custody to the mother in case of a divorce, even if the mother is the less desirable parent. Research has since shown that children thrive with more – not fewer – attachment figures, something that is overlooked by biasing the mother as the main figure in the child’s life. Further, anthropological evidence indicates that in most cultures, children interact quite frequently with a plethora of relatives and develop an attachment relationship with each. The idea of “it takes a village to raise a child” is so fundamental, that we really must take notice of it and begin to raise children within this context.

Harlow is rightfully well-remembered for his groundbreaking work on attachment in monkeys, but he hardly referred to the concept as attachment. He was steadfast in his beliefs about love – a word that caused him the rebuke of other scholars at the time. Even today, some psychologists have a hard time with the four-letter-word, asking questions such as – How do we define love, scientifically? How could we possibly measure love? Harlow’s own biased views about love, and his sometimes failed pursuits at finding love in his own life, shaped his own research questions and interpretations. He believed that love first occurs between mother and infant, but barring the failure of that love, people may never learn to love at all. This approach is well supported by current work on adult attachment relationships, which borrow more from Bowlby’s concept of inner working models – that the style of attachment we form with a caregiver provides the style that we form as adults in intimate relationships. However, there is still argument from people studying adult romantic relationships about whether the “love” we experience as parents is the same as the “love” we experience as lovers.

I think it is a mistake of researchers to assume that their work is not biased by underlying assumptions. We all run the same risk of mistaking what we believe should be with what we research as it is. By admitting these biases and values we hold, we can more easily move beyond them to unbiased research. To that end, I freely admit that I don’t believe mothers should raise children alone. I think those that are forced to (or opt to) do so are doing a disservice to themselves and their children. Now, lets see how that has shaped and continues to shape my research…..

So, should a parent cuddle their child or not? Is it a matter of degree rather than absolutes – a little cuddling is good, but otherwise tough love? Before you turn to parenting literature for this, or any question, it is a good idea to consider from where the person offering advice is coming.

Some great resources:

Blum, D. (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the science of affection. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39, 350–373. Available online at: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1988/A1988N971700001.pdf

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673-685. Available online: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/love.htm

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

van der Horst, F. C. P., LeRoy, H. A., & van der Veer, R. (2008). “When strangers meet”: John Bowlby and Harry Harlow on attachment behavior. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 370-388.

Watson, J. B. (1928). Psychological care of infant and child. New York: W. W. Norton.

There is pretty widespread agreement in the popular and academic worlds that women were made to be mothers. Picture Mother Mary, Jesus at her bosom (there were no breasts in the Renaissance images I am seeing), so designed to be a mother that she didn’t even have to participate in the act of conception to achieve her mothering perfection. There is such variation in the ways that women mother, however – from the 50s doting Donna Reed to mothers employing wet nurses and nannies to Andrea Yates, who drowned her 5 children – that one has to wonder: if mothering is so natural, why are some women so shoddy at or disinterested in it? And why do traditional societies, history, and comparative psychology contain so many examples of mothering requiring practice?

Humans possess relatively few, if any, skills that can be performed naturally, without practice. Even walking, once believe to just happen is now known to occur only after the infant has the chance to acquire other skills including balance and the coordination of upper and lower body. But walking is a skill that every normally developing infant eventually acquires, whereas mothering is not a skill that all women are willing or able to acquire – and there is much more variation in the outcome. Even still, a person can hardly think of a woman without picturing her as a mother. In fact, when men or mothers meet a married woman of reproductive age who has chosen not to have children, who among them doesn’t ask “why?” We even have many names for childless women, all pejorative (e.g. spinster, old maid).

Among hunter-gatherer groups, older sisters are often employed throughout the day to assist in childcare of younger siblings (Sear & Mace, 2008). In a Western context, we can see this practicing in the pretend play of (predominantly) girls with their dolls and accessories. Among the upper-class “founding mothers” generation of the U.S. colonies, upper-class teenage girls would often be apprenticed to new mothers to learn how to become mothers when their turns were up (Roberts, 2004). Even in other primate species, adolescent females yearn to get exposure to new infants, though humans alone among the great apes will share their very young infants with group members (Hrdy, 2009). Common chimpanzees will not share the infant until it is around 3.5 months, orangutans around 5 months – whereas in humans, it is mere minutes after birth. Women need training in all elements of parenting – from breastfeeding, which likewise does not just occur “naturally” (Volk, 2009) to dealing with a hormonal teenager. Feel free to leave a comment if you have tips about the latter!

Mothering can at times be overwhelming, especially when a mom finds herself with little to no help during most of the day. For those who have full-time careers, finding time to excel at work and raise a child can be daunting. Likewise, for mothers who stay at home with the children, dedicating yourself to the child at the expense of yourself, trying to complete daily tasks such as cooking and cleaning while tending to and entertaining a child, and trying to maintain a schedule that works for both you and the child (as in 5 am is too early, kids!) can be an exhausting challenge. This truth is inescapable.

Given the overwhelming nature of raising one of the most helpless and needy infants among primates, human mothers need others. In our modern world, we can see examples in Facebook, which has the support group Circle of Moms, where one can tag her friends who are also moms, and there are many mothers’ groups for finding playmates for mom and her child(ren) (such as the national group Las Madres). When new mothers were given support in the form of only 21 visits by RNs over the course of two years, their children benefited in many ways for at least the first 15 years of life, including cognitively (Hrdy, 2009). So, then, it is possible that when ‘others’ are around and help mothers hone their skills, both the mother and the infant benefit. In the Sear and Mace (2008) study cited above, for those infants who had older sisters to help in the childcare, they saw marked decreases in mortality. In other words, moms and infants both need moms who have help and support so that the moms may perfect their skills.

Switching from a natural mothers to practiced mothers perspective can be a real relief for modern moms. Perhaps a not so recent challenge is the feeling of isolation by being literally geographically isolated from friends and family. [I say not so recent because there are many times in history when women have been isolated from childhood friends and family by migrating due to marriage, and perhaps even woman have traditionally been the sex to migrate out of the group. I’ll save that for a future post]. Raising a human is at least the longest commitment among the great apes, if not the most challenging as well – humans are born completely helpless, unable to even cling to the mother; and require care well into adolescence. In fact, recent research suggests they need it much longer – humans don’t begin contributing as many nutritional resources as they consume until into their 30s (Kaplan, 2009). Accepting that mothering is a skill that takes practice can alleviate some of the stress of feeling like a fish out of water.

Similarly, accepting the practiced mothers perspective allows a new mother to accept help more readily. More often than not, mothers, mothers-in-law, and friends are offering help with childcare or advice because they’ve been there before and know how difficult transitioning from carrying a 25-pound bag of baby etc. in your uterus to caring for a 6-pound lump of baby can be. If a mother feels as if she should be a natural, then asking for help can be really intimidating.

So, are women natural born mothers? All signs point to no. Yes, their anatomy allows them to bear children, but that does not mean that they will be great mothers from day one, or ever. If you give a teenager a car, chances are through trial and error they’ll learn how to make it move – but that doesn’t mean that they’ll instantly be good drivers, and some might never even take the time to learn. So too, we need to remember that when it comes to mothering, perfection is not bred but requires a lot of practice.

References

Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Kaplan, H. (2009). Learning, menopause and the 70-year lifespan. Keynote address of the 21^st Annual Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference, Fullerton, CA.

Sear, R. &  Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 1-18.

Roberts, C. (2004). Founding mothers: The women who raised our nation. New York: William Morrow.

Volk, A. A. (2009). Human breastfeeding is not automatic: Why that is so and what it means for human evolution. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology, 3(4), 305-314.

NEEPS 2010, Return to New Paltz. What a whirlwind weekend! How amazing to return to where it all started, just four years ago, and see how far we’ve come. We topped the previous conferences in total numbers of attendees, the talks seemed to be even more stellar than in past years, and we saw the first workshop meeting of the Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society (FEPS). I am sorry to have moved on, but excited to already be co-planning my first conference as President.

One theme to come out of this conference was that of the obstacles we, as evolutionary scholars, have to face. An obvious source of contention comes from Creationists, who believe that evolutionary theory is scientifically disputable – but that is old news. One area about which we might not usually think was addressed by Robert Deaner of Grand Valley State University. He analyzed textbooks from the social sciences not for the authors’ animosity towards evolutionary theory – but the errors presented in the name of evolution. All 17 major textbooks at which he looked misrepresented the facts of evolutionary theory, and some argued against the theory based on these misunderstandings. Not only are we facing dispute from a non-scientific sector, but our own colleagues who are teaching the same students as are we.

Similarly, Kilian Garvey of University of New England, spoke of the existential threat evolutionary theory poses. People don’t question any other scientific theory in the way that they do evolutionary theory – though most people don’t understand all the details of the other theories either (such as relativity, gravity, or geophysics). Most people don’t contest that dinosaurs existed, but for the existence of evolution by natural selection – that is clearly not the case.

Leslie Heywood, from Binghamton University, gave an inspiring talk about evolution and feminism. She contended that evolutionary psychologists are not everywhere accepted, or even understood – and so too is the challenge for academic feminists, who are separate from the political feminists more often portrayed in media (and likewise separate from the political straw-woman against which some EPists apparently stand). She presented the quotes seen on another EvoS Blog, by NEEPS President Glenn Geher – Kramare and Treichler (1996): “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people,” and Geher (2009): “Evolutionary psychology is the radical notion that human behavior is part of the natural world.” These notions are not incompatible, even in a scientific setting.

To these challenges, NEEPS 2010 also offered hope. David Sloan Wilson reported on the Binghamton Project, which employs evolutionary theory to improving the community life of the citizens of Binghamton. If evolutionary theory can be used positively to improve public policy (emphasizing that humans do, indeed, have a rich (pre)history of prosocial behavior!), then we stand to benefit as a field of scholars. Much like the Civil Rights movement, change often comes by first instating behavioral changes, only then does attitude change follow. By the time people realize they are already using evolutionary theory in their everyday lives, it may be too late – they may already accept evolutionary theory!

Likewise, the inaugural meeting of FEPS provides hope to a new generation of scholars. While some people are put off by our use of the F word, our uniting message was clear: we are interested in examining the active role women have played in evolution, not to the exclusion, but in addition to the well-studied roles that men have played. We are a diverse bunch that cannot be pigeonholed, as our forthcoming title and mission statement will present. And if along the way, we help share evolutionary theory with some fields that might initially be unreceptive, then I can’t see the harm in that!

NEEPS has yet again shown that science is collaborative, and highlighted the best of that assertion. We are a tight knit group that is critical in thought, but not in interaction. From this, we produce positive scientific collaborations and research – made richer by the feedback we receive from these meetings.

On a final note, we also raised money for the National Center for Science Education. This organization promotes the accurate teaching of evolutionary theory in our public schools, and certainly, if our incoming students have been presented a fair and truthful representation, we stand against one less obstacle to the lay (and scholarly!) understanding of evolutionary theory.

References

Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! … and here’s why … Psihologijske Teme (Psychological Topics); Special Issue on Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 181-202.

Kramare, C., & Treichler, P. A. (1996).  A Feminist Dictionary. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

It seems a pregnant women is a magnet for unsolicited advice – most often tips for parenting, but even tips regarding how she should give birth. In my own experience, these tips came only from males or childless females, but I’ve not done the research to see whether my anecdotal evidence holds water. In this post, I will explore whether these birthing tips are more likely fact or fiction.

The first tip I encountered at a conference during my first trimester. I was informed that I absolutely MUST give birth in water. Our ancestors did it, and it offers a smooth transition for the baby from the amniotic fluid filled womb to our waterless world. Being no novice to childbirth, I was immediately repelled by the idea, in no small part because women in childbirth frequently lose control of their voluntary organs (to put it lightly). There is variation in how women deliver babies in traditional cultures, such as who is allowed to be present (from no one to female relatives or midwives, typically) to how removed the mother must make herself from the rest of the group, some having to find an isolated hiding spot among the trees (Hrdy, 2009). Despite the variation, in the traditional cultures studied, women give birth on land (e.g. dirt outside, dirt floor in a home) most often while in a squatting or kneeling position. But as to the location of these mythical places where women give birth in water, my searches have been fruitless. And for at least two good reasons – how could that possibly be hygienic in most “traditional” places, lacking chlorine and filtration?, and the faulty assumption this approach implies, that naturally flowing water is as warm and cozy as the amniotic fluid from which the baby emerges.

The second birthing question I received was whether I was going to eat the placenta. I experienced a second eww factor here, but my well-meaning friend was only trying to explain that some women eat the placenta because we’ve been designed to do so to provide us with extra calories after giving birth. When you actually look into this practice, however, it begins to attain mythic proportions as well. In no traditional societies do women regularly engage in the practice of eating the placenta after giving birth (Hrdy, 2009). In fact humans, as well as our great ape relatives, engage in this practice so little that we actually stand out from many other mammalian species. As Hrdy puts it, the people practicing placenta ingestion are New Age women who believe it to be tradition.

The third question is such a personal, but common one for a pregnant woman: epidural or no epidural? My response was pretty unwavering – I was going “natural” with this one. And truly, in cultures without medicinal anesthetics, women do have to give birth without any painkillers. It’s no stroll through the park, but it is doable. However, as I just learned from the book Mothers and Others, the practice of licking the amniotic fluid off of newborns and eating the placenta that many mammals engage in (e.g. dogs, cats) actually serves as a natural anesthetic!

Had I known of the natural anesthetic properties of afterbirth, would I have changed my response to number 2? Not likely. Had water birthing and placenta eating been common practice in traditional societies, that still doesn’t make them best practices (also a valid argument for getting an epidural!) – the infant mortality rate in the U.S. has dropped drastically in no small part due to modern medicinal practices, especially the adoption of sterility. Giving birth is such a personal experience. I am happy to live in a country where I get to make my own choices for how to give birth, and leave the decisions of other expecting mothers to their own discretion.

[Do you have any outlandish labor advice stories to share? Add a comment!]

**Please check back in April for a post about the meetings of the Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society (FEPS; http://fepsociety.org) and the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society (NEEPS; http://neepsociety.com).**

References:

Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Elmo brightens up the faces of little ones while evoking memories of nails on a chalkboard in their parents…but his popularity and notoriety could have been predicted by ethologists years before the creation of this furry red monster. Elmo is red, which is a valued color in many species. Further, he has a high-pitched voice and loves repetition – both things that youngsters prize, and from which adults flee.

Elmo is red. Elmo could have been orange or yellow, but instead he is not just any shade of red, but the most vibrant, almost irritating form of red you could imagine. The first shades that aid in visual discrimination for infants are black, white, and red (Murkoff, Mazel, Eisenberg & Hathaway, 2003). Red allows infants to distinguish borders between objects and patterns. Further, in the wild, red is a signal of mate quality displayed by males for females (for example, see Wolfenbarger, 1999). The color signals dominance, which holds even in humans – in competitive sports, there is a higher probability of winning if you are wearing red in your uniform (Hill & Barton, 2005). Elmo’s fur is a dominant color, and by no coincidence, looked up to by his adoring fans.

Elmo’s voice is a special tone of high-pitch – and also displays extreme variations in pitch contours, and is rather slow. His voice is similar to the voice young children hear from all of the important adults in their lives – parentese! Parentese is the baby-talk used by caregivers to get and direct the attention of infants and young children, and also has benefits for language development (e.g. Fernald, 1992; Snow, 1994, respectively). Kids are used to hearing this type of speech at home, and likewise marvel when they hear it from their favorite red monster. Adults, on the other hand, do not typically employ this type of speech with each other (except in romantic relationships – stay tuned for a forthcoming blog on that topic). In fact, when we do hear an adult use this type of speech with another adult – such as in a nursing home – it is likely to sound just as grating to us as does Elmo’s voice.

Finally, the storyline of Elmo’s World is a repetitive narrative about things that kids like. He doesn’t just introduce dogs; he introduces them using his friends Mr. Noodle and Dorothy the Fish; kids; television; two interactive features; and the dog itself. This format doesn’t change, though the topic does. Infants and young children have two ways in which to learn about their environments – by repetition and exploration. The former explains why we have to read “Goodnight Gorilla” to our kids 1,000 times in a row, or let our kids continuously play with the buttons on the dryer. Elmo’s World helps kids learn about new topics by repeating them. Adults have other methods of learning, including problem solving and a wealth of learned information that enables us to retain new information more easily. So for adults, the repetitive method is boring, and potentially frustrating.

Many parents issue complaints about Elmo, feeling as though he has ruined Jim Henson’s Muppets. Being a die-hard Miss Piggy fan, I find myself often in agreement. But how many parents of yester-generation would load the 1-year-old into the car, cranking children’s music while heading off to the enriching “Little Tumblers” class? Today’s children face a world in which they are boss of their entertainment in a way never before. Rather than acclimating children to our world, we choose to create a whole new world just for them. And in that new world, Elmo is the mascot and king.

References:

Fernald, A. (1992b). Human maternal vocalizations to infants as biologically relevant signals: An evolutionary perspective. In L. Cosmides, J.H. Barkow, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 391-428). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hill, R. A. and Barton, R. A. (2005). Red enhances human performance in contests: Signals biologically attributed to red coloration in males may operate in the arena of combat sports. Nature, 435, 293.

Murkoff, H., Mazel, S., Eisenberg, A. and Hathaway, S. (2003). What to expect the first year. New York: Workman Publishing.

Snow, C. E. (1994). Beginning from baby-talk: Twenty years of research on input and interaction. In C. Gallaway and B. J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 3-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wolfenbarger, L. L. (1999). Red coloration of male northern cardinals correlates with mate quality and territory quality. Behavioral Ecology, 10(1), 80-90.

I am embarking on a new phase of raising my 1-year-old son: daycare. As a work-from-home mom, I am only looking for a very part time option to give Enso a chance to interact with other kids, and give me a few guaranteed hours of work time a week. But as with most parenting decisions, I get such conflicting response to this choice – from “good for you, enroll him even more than that” to “don’t do it!” In my experience, the don’t-do-it response comes from parents who believe that daycare is unnatural and harmful to the parent-child bond. But is daycare really that novel in our evolutionary history?

There are three ways that I would like to tackle that question. The first is to provide an example of a situation that is an extreme version of our modern daycares. The second is to broaden our concept of daycare to include instances where the child is left in the care of non-parents and fathers. The final is to look at the results of modern day care use.

One interesting and isolated example comes from examining Kibbutzim, communal living groups created in Israel in the early 1900s (Bessudo, 2009). The children of the early version of these communities lived in child centers, even spending nights outside of the parents’ home. However, when studying the attachments of the infants, Fox (1977) found that infants displayed an even stronger attachment with their mothers than the caregivers in the child centers.

One assumption about our human history is that mothers were the primary caregivers, and in a sense, the only caregivers of any consequence. This assumption is actually based more on the image of modern U.S. life (e.g. the nuclear family, mom in the kitchen baking cookies…) than traditional societies. Among the Efe and Aka Pygmy communities in Central Africa, that more closely match our prehistoric lifestyles, by 18 weeks of age infants actually spend less than half of their time with mom, and more time with others – including fathers, grandparents, and aunts and uncles (Hrdy, 2001). Its almost as if infants were made to depend on a wealth of adults – or in other words – “it takes a village”.

Even in modern Western cultures, as practices change, we see infants ready to form attachments with other caregivers, and other caregivers willing and able to step up to the plate. When fathers are engaged in the child rearing process, many prosper at more than just playtime. For example, when fathers work less and mothers work more, fathers are quite capable of assuming the full range of infant care (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000). Anecdotally, women that are now grandmothers often comment that my husband is so engaged, and that their husbands would have never changed diapers, fed the baby, etc. Evolution doesn’t work fast enough to create such a drastic change in 2 generations – indicating that if we are to accept a “maternal instinct” we must also grant the “paternal instinct” produced through our evolution. Of course parenting from either gender is so variable, and there are some mothers who maybe should have not taken on the challenge (I’m thinking Susan Smith and Andrea Yates here).

Research in developmental psychology shows that daycare can be quite influential in your child’s healthy development – if the child is encouraged to form a strong attachment with a consistent caregiver (Allhusen et al., 2001; Marshall, 2004). At Enso’s daycare, he will be assigned to one main teacher with other familiar faces willing to fill in as needed. I’ve no doubt that Enso will benefit from exposure to other babies his age, as well as more loving adults to welcome into his life.

As for my scientifically backed view on day care: children thrive with more, not less, love.

Post-script: When I posted my intentions on Facebook (I know, groan!) my favorite bit of speculative advice was: “It’s hard to fully appreciate your children until you spend some time away from them – and perhaps, just perhaps, the same is true for them in reverse?” (Thanks Rachelle!)

References:

Allhusen, V., and 31 members of the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2001). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD study of early child care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 457-492.

Bessudo, B. (2009). Kibbutzim Site. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from http://www.kibbutz.org.il/eng/

Fox, N. A. (1997). Attachment of Kibbutz infants to mother and Metapelet. Child Development, 28, 1228-1239.

Hrdy, S. B. (2001). Mothers and others. Natural History. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/11440/mothers-and-others

Marshall, N. L. (2004). The quality of early child care and children’s development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 165-168.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000). Factors associated with fathers’ caregiving activities and sensitivity with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(2), 200-219.

As happens with modern behaviors, the presumed ancestral human diet has been lifted up as a utopian ideal by which to live. The Paleo Diet (also Evolution Diet, NeanderThin) offers a way to return to our roots and reduce the risk of many current diet-related plagues – diabetes, high blood-pressure, and heart disease, to name a few. Proponents of these ancestral diets recommend removing from one’s diet foods only made possible with an agriculturalist practice – processed foods, wheat and other grains, etc. Instead, they recommend people eat fruits, nuts, and meat. Is this ancestral diet right for modern humans?

While many primates are frugivores, relying mainly on fruit for food, and other mammals are herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores, humans are most accurately diversivores – we not only eat a wide variety of foods, but we do so by design. Our digestive needs are such that we require meats to make some essential amino acids that our bodies cannot create; fruits and vegetables to provide us with necessary vitamins and minerals, etc. (Martin & Pilbeam, 1994). The agricultural diet, in its purest form, is not so far from these needs – this diet includes meat sources from cows, pigs, chicken, and a variety of other commonly slaughtered animals; grains; fruits and vegetables. Part of problem with agricultural eats is that modern foods mimic foods we were designed to eat but that were previously rare to come by. For example, with calories hard to find, we have evolved the craving for sugary and fatty foods so that we will bulk up on them when we do come across them. However, with sugars and fats far too common in agricultural societies, we end up with health problems.

Evolution is reputed for being a slow process – human ancestors didn’t just walk upright overnight. However, many lines of research now provide us with examples of much quicker heritable changes, such as that for lactose tolerance. People who come from places where cows have been domesticated for many hundreds of years possess the enzyme to digest lactose more often than those from places where cow domestication is more recent. That is why people from the Mediterranean can chow down on cheeses and yogurts, while friends from Asia may have to indulge less frequently. Agriculture as a common human practice is at least 11 thousand years old. Our bodies have kept up with lactose for 5-6,000 years, surely other changes have occurred since the advent of domestic corn and oats. We cannot view modern humans as stagnant – though evolution may move too slowly for us to notice in a few generations, our bodies (including minds) are changing as does our environment.

Finally, looking to our more traditional-living relatives, you aren’t going to see much obesity because the lifestyle won’t allow it. When is the last time you made a 20 mile hunting trip on foot? Undertook the back-breaking work of gathering roots and collecting water? Chances are never, as is true for most modern Americans. If many of us want physical exercise, we have to find it in a gym or a track. Sitting at a desk all day is a poor replication for our ancestral lifestyle. If you want to eat like our ancestors, you might also consider the demanding physical lifestyles in which they embarked. The calories in the actual foods aren’t going to vary that much, it’s the amount of calories we consume v. expend. We can’t all expect to join the Michael Phelps meal plan (~10,000 calories a day) without swimming laps like it’s a full time job.

Let me be honest – if you set before me a plate of organic fruits and veggies, or highly processed Twinkies and Ho-Hos, the choice will not be difficult – I will gorge on the mangoes. But if you want my advice on the Caveman’s diet, I’d say – walk the walk, or embrace moderate consumption of domesticated goodies. The problem isn’t agriculture, it is processed food and over-consumption, coupled with an unnatural amount of physical movement.

Further Reading:

Audette, R., Gilchrist, T., Audette, R. V., Eades, M. R. (2000). NeanderThin: Eat like a caveman to achieve a lean, strong, healthy body. St. Martin’s Paperbacks.

Cordain, L. (2002). The Paleo Diet: Lose weight and get healthy by eating the food you were designed to eat. Wiley.

Martin, R. D., & Pilbeam, D. R. (1994). The Cambridge encyclopedia of human evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Morse, J. (2008). The Evolution Diet: What and how we were designed to eat (second edition). Code Publishing.

Simoons, F. J. (1969). Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biological and cultural interrelations. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 14(12), 8190836.

Recently I heard an episode of This American Life detailing Jerry Springer, who almost resigned his position as a city council member after he was found to have used the services of a prostitute. This of course is not an entirely rare event – I was instantly reminded of Elliot Spitzer, who resigned from his position as Governor of New York after a similar occurrence; and Hollywood heart-throb Hugh Grant busted in a car. All three were at the time involved in committed relationships. Why would these powerful and/or unnaturally attractive men resort to these hook-ups? And why don’t we hear about women involved in similar situations?

We could turn to a socialization approach and say clearly there is a discrepancy in the social allowance of male v. female infidelity, and this may well be. Perhaps women are judged more harshly for stepping out, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t in fact stepping out. In a 1940s study of sexual habits in the U.S., blood tests revealed that almost 10% of the babies examined were conceived from extramarital affairs (as cited by Diamond, 1992). In other words, the husbands were not the fathers in almost 1 in 10 cases! Since not all sexual encounters result in pregnancy, one could presume the rates of infidelity to be higher among these women. Women are having affairs, even if we are being socialized with a “double standard”.

Maybe we can turn to a dominance-based explanation. These cheating men were in positions of power; perhaps power lends itself to more frequent sexual liaisons. Those who can, will, right? Historically, men have held such positions in Western cultures. However, women today hold positions of power, and even still it is Elliot Spitzer and not Hilary Clinton who got exposed for using the services of a prostitute. Since the establishment of the Women’s Rights movement in the U.S., women have shown that in the proper environments, they can be just as aggressive as men (e.g. female boxers); hold positions of power traditionally held by men (e.g. political office); and be the primary breadwinners in families (creating a small group of stay-at-home dads). If dominance is the explanation, as women continue to attain powerful positions, shouldn’t too we be hearing about increases in their high-profile infidelities?

Turning to some mating strategies research from an evolutionary perspective might lend some insight. Far from the misunderstanding that men are supposed to “sow their oats” while women maintain their virginal status until marriage, Schmitt and colleagues (2003) found that both men and women are designed to adopt short-term mating strategies, even if involved simultaneously in a long-term strategy*. However, what each sex looks for in a short-term mate differs. In line with parental investment theory, men, as the least compulsory investing sex (e.g. they don’t bear or nurse offspring), use short-term mating strategies to get a variety of mates (which doesn’t always mean the most desirable). Women, as the most compulsory investing sex, seek short-terming mating opportunities to find a high quality mate (which doesn’t always mean a good long-term investor).

At the risk of sounding like an NPR nerd, I think a quote from All Things Considered (March 11, 2008) sums up what we know from evolutionary psychology, at least in terms of men’s short-term strategies -  “They are seeking greater variety, something simple, no commitment.” While high profile men who cheat might be seeking out easy-to-acquire extra mates, high profile women who cheat are likely to continue seeking out high quality mates, who judging by media stories seem to be more discrete in their dealings than prostitutes.

*That these approaches have worked in our ancient past doesn’t mean they are either in line with our current morals OR unchangeable in our current environments. Check out the naturalistic fallacy for more.

References:

Diamond, J. (1992). The third chimpanzee: The evolution and future of the human animal. New York: Harper Perennial.

Schmitt, D. P., & 118 members of the International Sexuality Description Project (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85-104.

Anyone who has been to the Northeast is likely familiar with the miniature Dunkin Donuts convection the donut hole, aka the Munchkin. After an unsuccessful online search, I called headquarters to learn more about the history of this sweet, only to find them quite silent on the issue. What follows is based on hopeful speculation for the sake of an example of spandrel and exaptation in evolutionary theory.

Gould and Lewontin (1979) came up with the terms spandrel and exaptation to provide an explanation for the origins of heritable traits that weren’t initially adaptations. An adaptation begins as a trait that is selected for a particular function that it serves the carrier. A spandrel is a leftover of an adaptation. It has no function and is not subject to natural selection. However, if that spandrel is co-opted for a particular function, it is considered an exaptation – and then can actually become subject to selection. Though it didn’t begin as a functional product, in the end it comes to be. For example, bird feathers were initially an adaptation for thermoregulation, and later were co-opted, or exapted, for the function of flight. Flight in this case didn’t originate as an adaptation, but was co-opted from the spandrel.

The Munchkin illustrates the concept of exaptation well, though it requires a baker as “selector”, whereas natural selection operates with no selector. A doughnut in this example is a circular piece of dough with an empty circular middle. Imagine that the shape is created by making a round of dough, and then cutting out the middle piece, leaving you with the doughnut and some extra dough. Imagine further that the baker typically throws the middle piece aside as it serves no purpose. The middle piece here is a spandrel – it serves no function to the baker, but is rather a leftover portion of the functional dough – the doughnut.

However, the baker decides that those leftover pieces are too much of a waste. She decides to roll them into a ball and sell them separately from the doughnuts. She gives them a name, Munchkin, and markets them to dieters, children, and dog-owners for treats, and finds that these formerly useless pieces are now bringing in money. They have been co-opted for the function of money making, and therefore the Munchkin is an exaptation. Now she finds them so popular, the baker is creating different flavors, and fun boxes in which to sell the doughnut holes.

What originated as a mere by-product of the doughnut has now come to serve the function of a profitable treat. Though the Munchkin, as an exaptation, will be subject to selection pressures. Perhaps customers will prefer chocolate rather than plain Munchkins, resulting in more chocolate Munchkins being made. Or perhaps the mere size of the Munchkin will allow it to find its way to more diverse environments than the doughnuts, resulting in more Munchkins being made than doughnuts. Whatever the end result, the Munchkin shows that while some features are not initially subject to selection pressures, if they come to serve a function, someday they just may be.

[Postscript: I hope Stephen J. Gould had a sense of humor, otherwise he is figuratively rolling in his grave at my Just-So Munchkin story.]

Further Reading:

Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53(5), 533-548.

Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 205(1161), 591-598.